Census must not only count women — it must count them properly

Numbers have always told stories: Of progress, pain, and power. But too often, they have also erased people at the margins. As the country prepares for its next Census, we must ask: Will we count women in a way that reflects their diversity and realities? Or will the most marginalised be once again statistically invisible and politically excluded?
The passage of the Women's Reservation Bill — formally the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act — in September 2023 was a watershed moment. But its implementation has been delayed as it depends on the delimitation exercise, tied to the Census. This means that how we conduct the Census will shape not only who gets counted, but also who gets a seat at the table potentially for decades to come.
Therefore, the upcoming Census is not just a statistical operation. It is a unique opportunity to shape the scaffolding for a more inclusive democracy. But for that to happen, it must be gender-responsive in design and execution.
Over the past decade, I have witnessed firsthand how women in politics confront entrenched structural hurdles. Casual sexism within party ranks, lack of access to campaign finance, being ignored by the media, threats of violence — both online and physical — and being constantly overlooked by their respective political parties in ticket distribution for legislative seats. These challenges are magnified for women belonging to marginalised communities. Dalit, Adivasi, Muslim, queer, and disabled women, among others, face multiple and intersecting layers of discrimination. Simply reserving seats without addressing the ecosystem of exclusion will only reproduce inequalities in new forms.
The Census will not only be about collecting sex-disaggregated data. It should recognise that women are not a monolith and ensure that questionnaires reflect that complexity. These are some steps that can be taken: Gender-data can be cross-tabulated with indicators for literacy, employment, land ownership, bodily abilities, religion, caste, etc; partnering with experts in gender and caste research, keeping in mind that caste and subcaste formations can also be regional in nature; building public data portals that allow civil society to filter, analyse, and visualise gender-aggregated data; most importantly, the enumerators should be trained in gender sensitivity.
In 2011, the Census made a landmark move by including a separate 'other' gender category. But the enumeration process was poorly designed and inconsistently applied. This led to underreporting and misclassification of trans and non-binary persons. The next Census needs to correct this process of insensitivity and invisibilisation.
Some may argue that implementing a robust, gender-responsive Census is too resource-intensive. Yet, without it, we risk implementing laws that are still rooted in the status quo. Applied to women's representation, it will replicate existing power structures, with privileged women at the helm.
Once the Women's Reservation Act is enacted after a gender-responsive Census, we can monitor: If reserved seats across constituencies reflect the diversity of India's female population; if selection processes by political parties for reserved seats are evidence-backed, instead of being arbitrary; that there is a pipeline from panchayat to Parliament to prevent co-optation by elite women. These mechanisms would ensure that the policy is not tokenistic, and actually represents the women of India.
Further, it will help us answer these critical questions: How do we ensure women from the Other Backward Classes are not overlooked in seat allocations? How will political parties be held accountable for fielding women candidates from SC and ST communities – not just in reserved constituencies, but also in general ones?
Gender-disaggregated data would make visible those who are routinely ignored. And visibility matters because it seeds awareness, enables activism, and builds political pressure. A Census that fails to see women in all their lived realities is incomplete and unjust.
The Census is a political mirror. But without gender-responsive tools, it offers only a distorted reflection. Every person counts in a representative democracy, and every woman must be counted where it matters most: In our legislatures, policies, and collective future. Because women are not just half the population — we are half the potential. And it's high time India sees us that way.
The writer is the founder of Femme First Foundation and the lead author of The Fifteen: The Lives and Times of the Women in India's Constituent Assembly

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

41 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

The Hindu

an hour ago

• The Hindu

Samajwadi Party expels three MLAs for anti-party activities, deviating from core principles

The Samajwadi Party (SP) on Monday (June 23, 2025) expelled three of its MLAs for deviating from core party values and allegedly endorsing communal, divisive, and negative ideologies. The SP accused the three MLAs Abhay Singh (MLA from Gosainganj), Rakesh Pratap Singh (Gauriganj) and Manoj Kumar Pandey (Unchahar) of working against public interest. The SP expelled Abhay Singh (MLA from Gosainganj), Rakesh Pratap Singh (Gauriganj) and Manoj Kumar Pandey (Unchahar), for endorsing communal, divisive, and negative ideologies that go against the Samajwadi Party's inclusive and progressive principles. In its statement the SP blamed the leaders for actively supporting and helping political elements and ideas that are anti-women, anti-farmer, anti-youth, anti-business, anti-backward, anti-Dalit and against the rights of the marginalised. The SP statement added the three leaders were earlier given a 'grace period' for self-correction, but that time had now lapsed. It added that there is no room in the party for individuals acting against public welfare or its core ideological framework.

India Today

an hour ago

• India Today

Gujarat By-Election 2025 Result Live: BJP's Rajendra Chavda leads big in Kadi after Round 7 of counting

The BJP's Rajendra Chavda is leading in Kadi with 13,195 votes after seven rounds of counting have been completed. He has polled 29,870 votes as compared to Congress candidate Ramesh Chavda's 16,675 votes. BJP candidate Kirit Patel is leading in Visavadar with 16,881 votes after five rounds of counting. AAP's Gopal Italia is closely following him with 15,901 votes, while the Congress's Nitin Ranpariya is third with 1,375 votes. After six rounds of counting, BJP candidate Rajendra Chavda has opened a big lead over his Congress and AAP rivals, having polled 26,005 votes on the Kadi Assembly seat. The Congress's Ramesh Chavda has 14,047 votes, while the AAP's Jagdish Chavda has polled just 794 votes. BJP candidate Rajendra Chavda has further extended his lead in the Kadi Assembly seat of Gujarat with 21,584 votes after Round 5. He was ahead of the Congress's Ramesh Chavda who got 11,137 votes and AAP's Jagdish Chavda, who was a distant third with 654 votes. BJP candidate Kirit Patel has moved ahead of AAP's Gopal Italia in the Visavadar Assembly seat after the third round of counting of votes. Patel now has 10,486 votes ahead of Italia's 10,336. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate Gopal Italia is leading with just 391 votes in Gujarat's Visavadar Assembly seat, having polled 7,179 votes after the second round of counting. The BJP's Kirit Patel is second with 6,788 votes, while Congress's Nitin Ranpariya is a distant third with just 529 votes. BJP candidate Rajendra Chavda is leading in Kadi Assembly seat after two rounds of counting have been completed. He has so far polled 8,232 votes ahead of Congress candidate Ramesh Chavda, who has got 4,235 votes. BJP candidate Rajendra Chavda is leading after polling 4,233 votes in the Kadi Assembly seat after Round 1 of counting, while AAP's Gopal Italia is ahead in Visavadar with 4,042 votes. Postal ballots are being counted first as the counting of votes begins for the Kadi and Visavadara Assembly seats in Gujarat. Visuals from Gujarat's Mehsana showed poll officials at work before counting of votes. Counting of votes has begun for the Kadi and Visavadar Assembly bypolls in Gujarat. The fight for the Visavadar Assembly seat will be between the BJP's Kirit Patel, Congress's Nitin Ranpariya and AAP's Gopal Italia. The Visavadar Assembly seat of Gujarat went to bypolls on June 19 and saw a voter turnout of 56.89%. There is going to be a three-way contest in the Kadi Assembly seat bypolls in Gujarat with the BJP's Rajendra Chavda, Congress's Ramesh Chavda, and AAP's Jagdish Chavda in the fray. The contest could reveal the Dalit community's voting patterns in the region. The Election Commission of India will announce the results of the Kadi and Visavadar Assembly bypolls today. The counting of votes will begin at 8 am.